Prestige & Rich Pty Ltd v McGregor

[2020] QCA 220

[2020] QCA 220

COURT OF APPEAL

SOFRONOFF P
PHILIPPIDES JA
BODDICE J

CA No 236 of 2019
DC No 75 of 2019

PRESTIGE & RICH PTY LTD  Applicant
ACN 141 590 383

v

JANEY ELLEN McGREGOR  Respondent
OF THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING

BRISBANE

MONDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2020

JUDGMENT

SOFRONOFF P:  Justice Boddice will give his reasons first.

BODDICE J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against its conviction and sentence in relation to an offence of an agent’s failure to pay an amount in dispute of s 28(2)(a) of the Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld). The applicant committed that offence on 14 April 2016. The applicant was convicted of the offence and sentenced on 18 December 2018. The applicant was fined $5,000 and ordered to pay costs in associated amounts.

The applicant appealed that decision pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) to the District Court of Queensland. The District Court of Queensland considered the applicant’s appeal against that conviction and sentence and on 20 August 2019 ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs. In order to obtain leave from this Court, the applicant needs to establish that there has been an error of law in the decision of the District Court of Queensland in dismissing the appeal against conviction and sentence.

The applicant seeks to assert that such an error arises, having regard to the way in which the District Court dealt with the Magistrate provisions.  However, a consideration of the applicant’s outline and of the decision in the District Court does not support that conclusion.  The reasons of the District Court indicate that the District Court carefully considered each of the applicant’s grounds for appeal against both a conviction and sentence and properly concluded that no error had been established by the applicant to support allowing the appeal against conviction through a sentence.

Nothing in the applicant’s outline or indeed in the oral submissions made on behalf of the applicant have identified an error by way of the reason of the District Court Judge in relation to the dismissal of the appeal against conviction or in relation to the dismissal of the appeal against sentence.  The applicant also has not identified any general matters of importance which would support the granting of leave in the current circumstances.  As the applicant’s appeal does not have any prospects of success and there are no other reasons for grant of leave, I would refuse leave to appeal.

SOFRONOFF P:  I agree.

PHILIPPIDES JA:  I also agree.

SOFRONOFF P:  The application for leave to appeal is refused.  The order of the Court is that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.